REPLY TO THE PRESS RELEASE OF MARINA SPA by a contribution of Salvatore Schina
LEGALITY ': THE UNKNOWN
REPLY TO THE PRESS RELEASE OF MARINA SPA
I never imagined to read, in one document, an immense quantity 'of hypocrisy told, knowingly by a professional who holds the office of President Council Directors of the Port of Leuca spa
I speak of intentionality because it is unrealistic to think that the President of soc. Port does not know the facts said.
The psychological attitude of dr. Deveglia is to lead the reader in the belief that these are complex subjects, whose understanding is necessary to be an expert in administrative law and corporate law. To this end, shall prepare a document of eighteen pages, full of references to notes and documents (some of which are reproduced in part to misunderstand the content), perfect for confusing the people, discourage reading and then depart from the truth .
E 'indicates a reference to the note n.2985 12/05/1999 (page 2) where, according to the author of this press release, the City of Cape Castrignano it announced that it has initiated the procedure for selecting the private partner under the decree. 18/08/2000 n.267. A law that did not exist .
Before considering the merits of the topics covered by Dr. Deveglia, you should make a little example.
The "letter to the citizens," the facts alleged by the City Council signed the acts of July 6 us, helped to avoid it to be resolved to recognize the legitimacy a debt of the City of 3.5 million euro for the soc. Port, as proposed by our City Council.
Such a deliberate (if it was approved), would be a dangerous tool in the hands of the Port, such as to bring harm to the community, much higher than today.
addition, following the "letter" I left office by the superior body of the financial police and the Prosecutor General of the Court of Appeals Lecce, two separate court proceedings to ascertain the truth of the facts.
There is, therefore, in this' the last part of the municipal legislature, attention, never paid, administrative action, which leads to town all the institutional actors involved in a more responsible TRANSPARENCY, what the benefit of our community.
Only this, FOR THE MOMENT, I think it was a small miracle.
Returning to the "press release" Port of spa, My reply to that after about two months , Register and intimidation directed at those who dare to myself in future to report on facts or circumstances surrounding the joint enterprise. I have no interest to respond to these threats, moreover, the same qualify those who use it for what it is.
the interests of greater transparency and understanding of the facts being discussed, I enclose a copy of certain documents for a 'proper checking of certain statements of mine and President of the Port.
On pages 1 and 2 dr. Deveglia is a chronological reconstruction of a series of acts that lead to the establishment of the joint enterprise. By failing to say that these atti si spiegano, (hanno un senso, cioè), in quanto collegati ad un altro atto, ben più importante, che funge da presupposto, la delibera di Cons. Comunale n.81 del 1997 , con la quale l’Amministrazione Comunale sceglieva di costituire una società mista, a prevalente capitale privato, per il completamento e la gestione del Porto Turistico di Leuca. Prosegue, poi, nel patetico tentativo di trarre in inganno chi legge, inducendo a pensare che la soc. mista sia stata imposta dal Ministero della Navigazione , ponendo l’attenzione su singole frasi, decisamente, fuorvianti come: \u0026lt;\u0026lt;... the City should have formed a joint stock company, with a majority private capital (at least 51%) with which to request the granting fifty ..>> and \u0026lt;\u0026lt; ... the Ministry has reiterated that only after the establishment of the joint enterprise would be possible to restart the process>>. to conclude that: \u0026lt;\u0026lt;THE CHOICE OF A GRANT OF FIFTY YEARS AND THE CHOICE OF A COMPANY 'A JOINT MAIN PRIVATE CAPITAL (AT LEAST 51%) IS NOT' BEEN A CHOICE OR REQUIRED TO BE SOUGHT ANY handful of individuals .... BUT ONLY BY THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT AND NAVIGATION WITH PROPER LEGAL PRESCRIPTION !!!!!>>.
Far from it, there was no law or authority that required the City of Castrignano to set up a joint enterprise.
Measure 6.6 of the POP Puglia from 94 to 99, in fact, included as beneficiaries local authorities and joint venture public-private partnerships.
The City Council of the time, then, could take own this funding but did not, choosing the path of the joint enterprise.
Later, the company "Igeco, who had just finished building the port of Leuca, will become a private shareholder of that company.
Over ten years ago, an opposition councilor stated verbatim: \u0026lt;\u0026lt; The joint venture was set up towards the completion of the Port: the completion of this solution Harbour which was already full with the number of berths that had supplied was born out of the City Council. The port of Leuca, Puglia Porto only financed Plans Integrated Mediterranean, is now a complete port and completed. The expansion of choices were motivated by other interests not the interests of the community .... this would be a scandal and a robbery, would give the private decades of commitment and sacrifice of a whole community ...>>.
It 's true, however, that the Department of Navigation and Transport, with responsibility of the concession for fifty years, invited to attend the Conference Services, established by the City of Castrignano for 05.31.1999, (then held on 05.28.1999), acquired the admissibility of the application, in terms that the City, wanting to give life to an initiative value private law and it would constitute a first joint enterprise, which (the only person entitled) would then redrafted the application for the grant, on a competitive basis, as required by law. For obvious reasons of transparency and impartiality, and not, as would have us believe the dr. Deveglia, to require the City to set up a joint enterprise. (see Annex n.1).
After Services Conference, 28/05/1999, the Ministry notified the refusal to grant the concession for fifty years, (another " retail omitted) gave reasons for that denial with the irregularity on the lack of legitimacy of the City to require the granting and the incompleteness of the project.
against that refusal, the City and the newly formed soc. Port resorted to the TAR of Lecce with n.3189/2000 ruling, upheld the appeal.
Therefore, the Ministry Navigation, with a note of 07.12.2000, took note of this ruling, stated that the request made by the City could be called into investigation, not because " perfecting statutory ," writes Dr. . Deveglia, but by virtue of a sentence .... THE DIFFERENCE 'SUBSTANTIAL.
remains a violation of the law posted on the City Council and the Legal Gazette of the Province Herald, a request made by a public body, , of \u200b\u200bcourse, eliminating the possibility 'they were submitted OTHER competing applications, ensure the obtainment DELLA CONCESSIONE AL RICHIEDENTE (CHE SI SAPEVA AVREBBE TRASFERITO ALLA SOC. MISTA), IN REGIME DI MONOPOLIO… IL CONTRARIO DI QUANTO LA LEGGE DISPONE . La legge prevede, infatti, che in caso di più domande concorrenti, l’ente concedente debba preferire l’istanza che più assicura l’interesse pubblico. (quindi quella del Comune). Si fa rilevare, inoltre, che la concessione richiesta dal Comune aveva ad oggetto una superficie di mq. 79.509,00, la concessione, invece, rilasciata dalla Regione alla società Porto Turistico è pari a mq. 114.772,32 . Ciò comporta che, (anche nella DENEGATA ipotesi di voler considerare adjust the perfecting of the request for the grant by the City soc. mixed), considering the variation of increasing a new application would, however , concessions had to be REPUBLICATION instance, which would enable third parties to submit additional questions and competing alternatives. AS THE LAW REQUIRES.
This context CLEARLY ILLEGAL also reveals another aspect, is not insignificant that, as a result, you are representing.
Since the City forced , (ai sensi dell’art. 3 del DPR 509/97), a presentare, unitamente alla domanda di concessione, anche il progetto delle opere portuali che intendeva realizzare, l’Amministrazione Comunale del tempo decideva di utilizzare la 1° tranche del finanziamento accordato dalla Regione, per il pagamento delle spese relative all’elaborato, costato 448 milioni di lire.
Successivamente, per i motivi spiegati nella “lettera alla cittadinanza”, i lavori di completamento del Porto non venivano eseguiti ed il suddetto finanziamento veniva revocato. Oggi, il Comune si trova nella situazione di restituire le somme spese per il progetto, maggiorate degli interessi, the Puglia Region, for the soc. Port refuses to pay them.
According to the ' Illustrious dr. Deveglia, in fact, the Town Council in having to pay such charges, citing the usual obstructionist attitude of the previous municipal administration, wholly irrelevant, for the question at issue . (P.8 third last line).
Let me explain: Despite these sums have been spent on Writing out the PORT PROJECT WORKS TO BE CARRIED OUT, AND THAT ALTHOUGH DRAWN Serviss ONLY TO SOC. MARINA, THAT AFTER THE TRANSFER OBTAINED BY THE CITY ISTA licensors, ( So even the Annex DRAFT ), A DISTANCE OF MORE THAN TEN YEARS, IT IS STILL REFUSING TO PAY THESE COSTS! !??.....
Obscenity ' the whole operation is clear, however, even from meetings held in the council room of the municipality, the period December 2006 - January 2007, that our Mayor (who had a conflicting interest), it showed, very, interested in finding an agreement between the joint enterprise and small dealers, because - publicly stated - there was the danger in case of (??!!), refusing the issue of fifty years, a concession with the republication of such a request more than likely involvement of other competitors.
Then we all know as you go, the manager of the State Property and Heritage of Puglia denied to the fifty-Port, citing a number of reasons, including , to republish \u0026lt;\u0026lt; of now >> demand concessions of Port spa, never happened . (see Annex 1).
joint ventures and Mayor departed the office, it, emptying, political significance of the fundamental role of the entire City Council, with known prot. n.12385 of 27/02/2007 and later, sent arbitrary executions, the State Property Sector of the Region of Puglia, Opinion positive for the issue of fifty years in favor of the soc. Port, calling the latter the only viable proposal !!??. A few months later, after a few passages (which, for brevity, I omit to say), succeeded in getting the state concession for fifty years, reversing the detail NEGATIVE OPINION the issue of such a license, issued in the meantime, the Office of Legal Affairs of the Region of Puglia 20/7403/P a note of 03 July 2007.
On pages 3, 4 and 5 the President of the Port climb on mirrors to show the legitimacy of the award of tender to the company "Igeco" and the legality of the tender carried out by the Municipality.
states that the requirements of the company "Igeco" were shown by Mr. Massimo De Marzio Nights and Bonomo, but did not say who are the latter (if they practice white magic or the black one), and how would made to acquire all of the requirements to tender the above company. Still, that "Igeco" would present a business plan for the entire duration of the concession, without explaining, as ever, in 2007 was to complement this plan, following precise instructions of the Region. (See Annex 1). A disregard of the ridiculous also attempts to justify the absence of the post of Director of the Port (which second offering "Igeco " had to be one of the figures most qualified technical management of the port structure) , stating that this function is covered by itself .... Self-appointed "interim".
emphasizes the publication of the notice, a regular in the Official Journal of the Community European, never questioned by me, and says nothing of the publication, irregular the Official Gazette of the Italian Republic.
At pages 6 and 7 dr. Deveglia highlights the fact that prior to December 2008 the joint venture operated on active bases, it was therefore necessary to pay the additional seven-tenths of a share capital. It 's true, the City loses only . In fact, the President FAILS to say that until that date, the company did not had paid one euro in respect of ICI or TARSU and that only thanks to that fact, the company was not borrowing. To give an idea of \u200b\u200bthe proportions of the facts, it is noted that, to date, the joint venture would have to pay as ICI Tarsu a figure close to one million euro, and that, in the same period, ' useful product by the same company, inclusive of these taxes and the "elimination of fiscal " not even reach the five hundred thousand euro .
THAT IS TO SAY THAT THE PRACTICE OF 'YEAR OF THE FIRST TEN YEARS OF SOC. MARINA ARE NOT EVEN ENOUGH TO COVER THE PAYMENT OF THESE TAXES MUNICIPAL . FACT THAT ONLY REQUIRES THE REGION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED TO SOC. MARINA, as per Section 5 of Presidential Decree 533/96, FOR REASONS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, even before the establish justice, AFTER a very long time. It is no coincidence that, after further condemnation of the soc. Port, by the court of second degree, to pay to the City, about three hundred thousand euro (just TARSU), will grant the deferral of debt to the joint enterprise, ( once again usurping the prerogative of the Assembly Council Chamber ), to "spread" this person in several years, in order to contribute to MASK THE GRAVE SITUATION diseconomy 'management. difficult task, since to remedy the disastrous situation of the company would need at least a claim for the 3-4 million Euro . DO NOT KNOW IF THAT AMOUNT brings to mind something to someone.
Né è casuale l’operazione di “ disinquinamento fiscale”, retroattiva, operata dalla soc. Porto Turistico nel 2004, con la quale sono stati aggiunti agli utili degli esercizi successivi Euro 118.571, derivanti da ammortamenti “in eccesso” degli esercizi precedenti. Tale operazione avveniva subito dopo che il Comune nella riunione del C.d.A., del 31/07/2003, aveva LEGITTIMAMENTE preteso il DOVEROSO SCIOGLIMENTO DELLA SOCIETA’, al verificarsi delle condizioni di cui all’art.7 della Convenzione attached to the notice, namely:
1) failure to achieve the business purpose within three years the date of incorporation, or
2) a serious and incurable diseconomy in management, or
3) repeated negative balances.
is currently pending litigation between the City of Castrignano and soc. "Igeco" for the latter, the majority shareholder, voted (The Board on 31.7.2003) against the draft resolution: \u0026lt;>. In that meeting, the Igeco motivated his vote against on the grounds that he never signed the Convention and therefore not binding on the . Fortunately, the City, however, the Convention was attached to the notice, it was mentioned in the Statute, and most importantly, there is " statutory " regardless of whether the member has deprived the signed or not. on February 8, after several postponements, (of which I said in "Letter to citizenship"), the Civil Court to decide on Lecce binding nature or otherwise of the Convention .
will establish that, if the private partner is required or not to comply with the provisions of the Convention. If that should be AND 'THE PACIFIC COMPANY' WAS TO BE DISSOLVED since 31/07/2003, having all three of the above conditions . The "Igeco" defends himself by saying that the occurrence of the deficit of the joint enterprise is dependent upon obstructionist attitude of the previous municipal administration. also want to follow this reasoning, it is clear that both could have affected the occurrence of the first condition of dissolution, not the other two. for which the municipality, with its 49% even if it could not affect in any way.
Returning to fiscal items, I note that it is the reduction in the rate of depreciation of Equipment and floating assets of the company. " This produces a double benefit for the private shareholder: higher profits and an accounting statement of the company "apparently" more solid.
About the Board of Auditors noted in his report to the 2004 Budget \u0026lt;> and \u0026lt;>.
addition to the undoubted diseconomy management, therefore, we face the TOTAL BREACH OF ANY PROVISION OF GOOD AND PROPER MANAGEMENT COMPANY, as the Mayor pointed out, while in the care of their language.
On pages 8, 9 and 10 dr. Deveglia, points out that the contribution of nearly four billion lire approved by the Region of Puglia in the City of Castrignano (for the completion of Porto), was granted but has never been paid if not necessary to pay for the part of the design of port operations, (which was mentioned earlier). On that bases its justification for subtlety over the failure the failure to increase the share capital to the amount of at least nine billion by the joint enterprise, in order to achieve the completion of the Port , as required by the notice. That is, the "defense" would be: because the contract requires that the capital increase (in order to begin work to complete the port) would have happened \u0026lt;\u0026lt; as soon as the funding ...>> and given that such funding was only allowed and not paid, there would be no violation. I only see the dr. Deveglia that: not always, but sometimes it happens that the public might do to assistance granted only after the completion of the works.
then says that \u0026lt; these works have never been started because the state concession fifty years ... was achieved only in 2008>> and still \u0026lt; >>
I would like to see the President, that if it is true that the property of the state is "still " in public hands, the company Harbour has always been the state concessions, albeit temporary, of the various port areas. Otherwise, how explain the management of the Port until May 2008? With an abuse? ( likely, since it has never been any formal handover between the City and soc. Harbour) . Or maybe the dr. Deveglia argue that the temporary state concessions were appropriate for the management of the Port and inadequate for the completion of the same ?
On page 11 President asserts that the note of the adjustment of appraisal, signed by Eng. Cesari, \u0026lt;\u0026lt; was sought and obtained from the public >>. The umpteenth " freedom." See Minutes of the Board of the joint enterprise of 08 / 08/2000.
On pages 12, 13 and 14 dr. Deveglia remarked several times \u0026lt;\u0026lt; DEBTS OF WHICH ARE MADE AGAINST THE CITIZENS OF AN ERROR >>. I remember the ineffable President who, at present, there is no debt at the head of the latter, or, there will be, if justice will follow its regular course. So this savings is psychological terrorism against innocent citizens and to think rather than debt real mixed society, or if you prefer, and prospects of the private companies that castrignanese to the community .... for which is pending action before the Civil Court of Lecce. ( a cause which was never discussed ALTHOUGH IT IS VITAL TO THE ECONOMY AND THEREFORE THE FREEDOM 'OF THE COMMUNITY' ). The reference to the concept of freedom is not superfluous but wants to remember that the freedom of each individual starts with their own economic independence. The President asserts, moreover, that \u0026lt;> and supports this argument relying on the ruling that would give reason to the joint enterprise. not to say however, that the same sentence, which he cited, he considered legitimate claim of the municipality, although the extent of 55 million and two hundred thousand lire. That application was rejected by the courts only for the negligence of the municipality that has challenged the decision of the Board of Directors of the Port (which denied the recognition of that debt), few days after the statutory time limits (three months). So much so that the sentence reads verbatim \u0026lt;> . That is, the claim of the City has been recognized so worthy of consideration, which would cause the judge, who had ordered the city to offset some of the costs.
The last pages contain some pointless speculations of dr. Deveglia aspects, almost entirely, on the above Findings of Appeals ruling. With regard to these matters I have already spoken, so do not want to repeat myself. In reference, however, in refusing to grant 27/02/2007, from the region, requires a clarification.
Dr. Deveglia (p.16) states that following objections and \u0026lt;\u0026lt; documentation prior >> sent to the region by the soc. Harbour, (with a note of 04.14.2007), the Office of Legal Affairs of The , at the request of the Head of the procedure, with a note prot. n.20/7827 of 10/07/2007, issued a positive opinion.
Not really , it is true, however, that as a result of this request for an opinion, the Office of Legal Affairs of the Region gave an unfavorable opinion issued of the concession notes with prot. 20/7403/P of 03/07/2007, which was the need to re-convene the conference service, to republish demand concessions, to assess the comparison of the various interests involved, etc. .. Only a week later, after " new facts", (Which refer to another time), the Office of Legal Affairs, issued a positive opinion.
In that regard, it is significant that the dr. Deveglia do not sign documents "past" brought to the region, after refusing to grant in February 2007, or acquire those made when the ruling was unfavorable opinion of the Legal Division of the Region, \u0026lt;\u0026lt; not known at the time the opinion of the said >>.
In truth facts , acts and circumstances little known in the ' PORT OPERATION " there are many. Some, however, are known but unspoken .
E 'at least strange that, on 10/07/2007, the Office of Legal Affairs of the Region issued its positive opinion, ( upon which AT PRESENT GRANT ) , omettendo di affrontare la questione della completezza e legittimità del progetto. Dopo che:
_ nel 1999 il Ministero ntificava il diniego della concessione (anche) per l’incompletezza del progetto;
_ nel Febbraio 2007, la Regione, (a cui nel frattempo era stata trasferita la competenza al rilascio delle concessioni demaniali) notificava il diniego della concessione (anche) per l’incompletezza del progetto;
_ Il 03/07/2007, lo stesso Ufficio Affari Legali della Regione emetteva il proprio parere negativo per una serie di motivi tra cui (anche) quello dell’incompletezza del progetto. For brevity, I quote only one of many reasons why it is illegal to adopt the draft of the Port means the non-delivery of environmental documents by the competent authority, in accordance with DPR 12/4/1996 (now ex D. Decree 152/06) and lrn11/01.
Before concluding, I want to point out a fact that is representative of the concept of legality and transparency of the soc. Harbour, which mentions the dr. Deveglia in the introduction, \u0026lt;\u0026lt;.. absolute transparency that has always characterized the directors of that company .. >>
ll June 27, 2008, the undersigned, submit a request for information to the Mayor and General Manager of the City to acquire certain resolutions of the Board of Directors of the soc. Port. After a few days, the director, dr. Nunzio Fornaro, I stated that this request should be forwarded directly to the soc. Port. By a further note, always directed to those offices, I represented my refusal to speak with the joint enterprise, and I explained that my request, justified by the role of directors with, was addressed to the Mayor and Board of Directors of Castrignano soc. Harbor and that, therefore, the latter could not avoid the obligation to provide, before him, the documents requested and then "turn over" to the undersigned.
The October 2, 2008 the town council sent me the letter prot. n.9596 dell'01 / 10/08, signed by the President of the Port, , which emphasized the impossibility of escaping the request of Councillor Schina Savior, but also the City of Cape Castrignano, even in As a member of a minority stake SpA Harbour. (see Annex No. 4).
Note lightness and levity 49% of the public!!
This situation deprives the citizens of Castrignano the greatest asset they have: HOPE . That makes it even more sad is that what happens in a region where someone says \u0026lt;>. (Vendola, 03/21/2009).
PS . I note also the "programs" of the soc. Council House - Company Igeco . Cito only: the unfortunate project, already funded by the Region to the City of Castrignano for "the safety of the canyons of Leuca, a project that involves the construction of concrete barriers along all paths to the" Channel of the Menge "and" Channel's "Leopard", culminating in the vicinity of the outlets to the sea with the additional large concrete casting. Obviously the safety of the "Channels" (this is already a paradox) is only a pretext to obtain financing, the real goal is to protect a few dozen moorings secured two new sections of the dock, placed there by soc. mixed, however, in a zone "bound" where, then, nor should they insist. This is even more serious when one considers that in Leuca, there is, in truth, a single channel to be secured is that of St. Vincent, seriously threatened by sewage treatment plant of the consortium that spilled on it. For the record , in the channels of Pardo and Menge, the undersigned had, Naive, brought an action aimed at creating pathways ecological equipped, consisting of the redevelopment of old paths with spaces for parking. A road already taken by the previous municipal administration, albeit with a small (large) intervention at the "Canal of Menge" (for which have been spent only fifteen thousand euros) and that, currently, is intentionally abandoned the absolute degradation. I ask a thousand times sorry .
The City Council
Salvatore Schina
